I can't wait for Universal Healthcare...
WaveCameCrashin
Posts: 2,929
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_a ... 039285.ece
Patients were routinely neglected or left “sobbing and humiliated” by staff at an NHS trust where at least 400 deaths have been linked to appalling care.
An independent inquiry found that managers at Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust stopped providing safe care because they were preoccupied with government targets and cutting costs.
The inquiry report, published yesterday by Robert Francis, QC, included proposals for tough new regulations that could lead to managers at failing NHS trusts being struck off.
Staff shortages at Stafford Hospital meant that patients went unwashed for weeks, were left without food or drink and were even unable to get to the lavatory. Some lay in soiled sheets that relatives had to take home to wash, others developed infections or had falls, occasionally fatal. Many staff did their best but the attitude of some nurses “left a lot to be desired”.
RELATED LINKS
‘Third World’ hospital may have killed 400
First big case of death by empty words
MULTIMEDIA
The inquiry in full
The report, which follows reviews by the Care Quality Commission and the Department of Health, said that “unimaginable” suffering had been caused. Regulators said last year that between 400 and 1,200 more patients than expected may have died at the hospital from 2005 to 2008.
Andy Burnham, the Health Secretary, said there could be “no excuses” for the failures and added that the board that presided over the scandal had been replaced. An undisclosed number of doctors and at least one nurse are being investigated by the General Medical Council and Nursing and Midwifery Council.
Mr Burnham said it was a “longstanding anomaly” that the NHS did not have a robust way of regulating managers or banning them from working, as it does with doctors or nurses. “We must end the situation where a senior NHS manager who has failed in one job can simply move to another elsewhere,” he added. “This is not acceptable to the public and not conducive to promoting accountability and high professional standards.”
A system of professional accreditation for senior managers would be considered and the Mid Staffordshire trust might lose its foundation status.
Some NHS chief executives have received six-figure redundancy packages or moved to other trusts despite poor performance. Martin Yeates, the former chief executive at Mid Staffordshire, received pay rises that took his annual salary to £180,000, while standards at the trust deteriorated.
The Liberal Democrats claimed that he had also received a payoff of more than £400,000 after stepping down last March, though Mr Burnham said he had received “no more than his contractual entitlement”.
The Care Quality Commission, the NHS regulator, said that the trust under its new management was now “safe to provide services”. But it still had concerns about staffing, patient welfare, the availability and suitability of equipment at the trust, and how it monitored and dealt with complaints. The inquiry made 18 recommendations for the trust and the wider health service, which the Government accepted in full. They include a new review of how regulators and regional health authorities monitor NHS hospitals and a report on “early-warning systems” to identify failing trusts.
But the families of those who died or suffered poor care branded the inquiry a “whitewash” and repeated calls for a full public investigation. The Conservatives accused ministers of trying to blame managers rather than taking responsibility for problems with national targets.
Julie Bailey, who founded the victims’ campaign group Cure the NHS after her mother died at Stafford Hospital, said that the handling of the scandal was disgraceful and unacceptable.
“It is time that the public were told the truth about the very large number of excess deaths in NHS care and the very large number of avoidable but deadly errors that occur every day.”
The NHS Confederation, which represents health trusts, said: “The responsibility for the way this hospital was run rests with its board, management and staff but, as the report says, the framework of targets, regulatory systems and policy priorities it worked within are also very important.”
This is the UK's answer to Univeral Healthcare.
A single payer authoritarian Gov run healthcare system that covers pre existing conditions.
Everybody has healthcare. Its all SUBSIDIZED...NOBODY CAN BE TURNED AWAY.
the problem is no one can get in,and so few can get QUALITY CARE no matter how much is spent.
We have brand new drugs being devloped everyday in the western world and yet these patients in the UK are denied.
If you don't think that this can't happen here you're WRONG.
Patients were routinely neglected or left “sobbing and humiliated” by staff at an NHS trust where at least 400 deaths have been linked to appalling care.
An independent inquiry found that managers at Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust stopped providing safe care because they were preoccupied with government targets and cutting costs.
The inquiry report, published yesterday by Robert Francis, QC, included proposals for tough new regulations that could lead to managers at failing NHS trusts being struck off.
Staff shortages at Stafford Hospital meant that patients went unwashed for weeks, were left without food or drink and were even unable to get to the lavatory. Some lay in soiled sheets that relatives had to take home to wash, others developed infections or had falls, occasionally fatal. Many staff did their best but the attitude of some nurses “left a lot to be desired”.
RELATED LINKS
‘Third World’ hospital may have killed 400
First big case of death by empty words
MULTIMEDIA
The inquiry in full
The report, which follows reviews by the Care Quality Commission and the Department of Health, said that “unimaginable” suffering had been caused. Regulators said last year that between 400 and 1,200 more patients than expected may have died at the hospital from 2005 to 2008.
Andy Burnham, the Health Secretary, said there could be “no excuses” for the failures and added that the board that presided over the scandal had been replaced. An undisclosed number of doctors and at least one nurse are being investigated by the General Medical Council and Nursing and Midwifery Council.
Mr Burnham said it was a “longstanding anomaly” that the NHS did not have a robust way of regulating managers or banning them from working, as it does with doctors or nurses. “We must end the situation where a senior NHS manager who has failed in one job can simply move to another elsewhere,” he added. “This is not acceptable to the public and not conducive to promoting accountability and high professional standards.”
A system of professional accreditation for senior managers would be considered and the Mid Staffordshire trust might lose its foundation status.
Some NHS chief executives have received six-figure redundancy packages or moved to other trusts despite poor performance. Martin Yeates, the former chief executive at Mid Staffordshire, received pay rises that took his annual salary to £180,000, while standards at the trust deteriorated.
The Liberal Democrats claimed that he had also received a payoff of more than £400,000 after stepping down last March, though Mr Burnham said he had received “no more than his contractual entitlement”.
The Care Quality Commission, the NHS regulator, said that the trust under its new management was now “safe to provide services”. But it still had concerns about staffing, patient welfare, the availability and suitability of equipment at the trust, and how it monitored and dealt with complaints. The inquiry made 18 recommendations for the trust and the wider health service, which the Government accepted in full. They include a new review of how regulators and regional health authorities monitor NHS hospitals and a report on “early-warning systems” to identify failing trusts.
But the families of those who died or suffered poor care branded the inquiry a “whitewash” and repeated calls for a full public investigation. The Conservatives accused ministers of trying to blame managers rather than taking responsibility for problems with national targets.
Julie Bailey, who founded the victims’ campaign group Cure the NHS after her mother died at Stafford Hospital, said that the handling of the scandal was disgraceful and unacceptable.
“It is time that the public were told the truth about the very large number of excess deaths in NHS care and the very large number of avoidable but deadly errors that occur every day.”
The NHS Confederation, which represents health trusts, said: “The responsibility for the way this hospital was run rests with its board, management and staff but, as the report says, the framework of targets, regulatory systems and policy priorities it worked within are also very important.”
This is the UK's answer to Univeral Healthcare.
A single payer authoritarian Gov run healthcare system that covers pre existing conditions.
Everybody has healthcare. Its all SUBSIDIZED...NOBODY CAN BE TURNED AWAY.
the problem is no one can get in,and so few can get QUALITY CARE no matter how much is spent.
We have brand new drugs being devloped everyday in the western world and yet these patients in the UK are denied.
If you don't think that this can't happen here you're WRONG.
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
yawn.
this is one hospital for fuck sake...
and your comments above are just scaremongering lies... genuine lies.
"no-one can get in" ... thats just utter shit. utter shit. It's illegal here for a hospital to refuse medical care to any British citizen. illegal.
"so few can get QUALITY CARE" ... its 100% better quality care than some 16 year old girl who gets gang-raped in Alabama who will then be 'charged' by the ever compassionate US medical system for a rape kit, the abortion and 3 bandages.
don't read one fucking article and then think its the 11th commandment or something... its a run down inner city hospital... I live in a rural area of Scotland... the hospitals around here are genuinely fantastic as are most in the UK. There will be hospitals in Manchester, Glasgow & London that are perhaps not as good.. but its not a perfect system... its a fuckload better system than the US medicals version of darwinism though. instead of the fittest surving its the richest.
using one bad example of a hospital and saying its like ALL hospitals .. is like me saying all americans are gun wielding burger munching right wing racists with really bad dress sense.
smarten up.
Exactly. There's no question of 'turning away' as there is no 'entry'. You're 'in' at birth - automatically - no questions asked. You're 'in' for life. If you are not born in the UK, all legal UK residents are entitled to this as well. Again, for legal residents, there is no 'turning away'.
Ummmm.... It's not a question of getting 'in'. See above
The majority get quality care. Naturally, like in all other countries/businesses, the level of service can vary.
Apologies for the cut and paste from another thread but this is a few examples from my 'normal' :P family
I was hit by a car a few months ago was attended by an emergency response paramedic for the few minutes waiting for the ambulance to arrive. Taken to A&E (ER) where I was monitored for several hours and had a few tests had stitches which were done by a maxiofacial surgeon who was called to the department, and then was sent on my way with a bunch of meds. I told them my name, date of birth and name of my doctor. I didn't fill in any forms and didn't hand over any cash (I know a few universal health care systems do require some form of co-pay)
I also have a condition that requires me to go to see a specialist for a check up three times a year and may require treatment while I'm at the check up none of which I pay for. Also if in between times I have any problems I have a number to call the clinic for advice and if they think I need to be seen they will just tell me to come in the next day ... no long wait for appointments (I know this is something people worry about with universal healthcare) ... this is a condition that doesn't terribly inconvenience me or where a wait would cause a problem.
Also for the past year my father has health problems (and lives in a different part of the country so different local health authority) ... he is being seen by a neurologist, cardiologist, general surgeon, opthamologist and haematologist, has had mris, ct scans, pretty much every test known to man and he takes around 15 pills a day. The only cost is the prescription co-pay which in this country is £7.20 per item ... but if you want (which my Dad does) you can pay £104 and that covers all medication for a year. So for about $150 he gets around 120 prescriptions of drugs
My nephew needed surgery that could be performed at a handful of hospitals in this country. His parents was given the choice of which hospital they wanted the surgery performed at and chose the best children's hospital in the country which happened to be the furthest from where they lived ... the NHS covered travel by plane or train to and from all his appointments including pre and post op for him and 2 adults as well as over night accommodation for those who travelled with him when he had his surgery.
This is my experience of Universal Healthcare.
The NHS is not only about emergency care, it's all healthcare, (ie going to see your doctor, blood tests, etc.).
The idea is that ALL are entitled to healthcare, rich or poor - no class difference. Maybe too much of a seemingly socialist concept for the USA?
For one thing why the heck would they have any other hospitals? ...I mean doesn’t everyone there request the best?....So if everyone was allowed to go to the best how do they handle it? And who has to go to the crappy hospitals?
You may find it hard to believe but it is the truth. What purpose would lying serve?? For that particular surgery there are a handful of hospitals that perform the surgery to concentrate the talents in that field. They were asked at which of these hospitals they wanted to have the surgery done (the closest being two hours drive from where they lived) and they chose the one that is the most well known children's hospital in the country. Some people for convenience may have chosen the hospital nearest to them as all hospitals that perform this surgery are 'centres of excellence' for want of a better term.
redrock knows where my family lives and if I say he had the surgery at GOSH can confirm that this is some distance away.
I stated that it was an operation that is only performed in a few places and that is the reason for the choice. This won't be the same for all surgeries. Most of the time you will be referred to your local hospital. If you wanted to I'm sure you could request to be treated elsewhere but the majority of surgery isn't 'life saving' and convenience is an issue too.
One has a choice of hospitals and if the treatment is so specialised that only a handful of hospitals have the capability to treat, even more so. Also, in Chime's case, we are talking about a child, therefore parents are included.
When my husband had his massive brain hemorrhage he was in the absolutely best hospital in London for this. First of all, it was the luck of the draw because it obviously was an emergency and this hospital was closest to work but, when he was stable and they wanted to move him into our local authority hospitals, we denied this and requested he say there (even if I have a hospital close to where I live). If my husband wanted to, he could have requested to be transferred to a hospital in the north of the UK to be close to his parents. Same thing when he had three months in-patient neuro-rehab. We chose one of the best centres, not the closest one (though the best was close enough!). Most hospitals are perfectly decent for non specialised care. When it comes to choice of best hospitals, most people don't bother researching their options.
I've lived in a number of countries with different types of care. With all it's faults, the UK comes tops with the US at the bottom.
EDIT: Yep... GOSH is a fair distance away!
local people.
If i have a sprained ankle I can get seen within an hour. someone in a not as decent area in an inner city might have to wait longer and the hospital might not be as 'decent'...
but if one of our children had a serious problem then we could get specialist treatment in any of the hospitals specialising in this... but local hospitals normally deal with the local people... and as you are well aware.. one locality is much different to another.. i.e. a hospital in Detroit wont be as 'decent' as one from Cape Cod or somewhere salubrious.
Don't split hairs. As I said, like in every industry, levels of service vary. I would be lying in saying ALL hospitals are very good hospitals. Don't tell me in that in the USA ALL hospitals are very good. What people go to better hospitals and which ones go to 'not as good' ones? Well.. your guess is as good as mine - would be the same issue in the US. Well... not quite the same issue in the USA as people will not have the same kind of choice - that will depend on who has money/insurance and who doesn't.
Example. I've got two hospitals equi-distant from where I live. Both offer the same kind of 'everyday' services. One has a better reputation than the other. I've been going to the 'other' for x-rays, physio, blood tests, etc. My husband has been going for MRI's, neuro follow-up, etc. I don't think we have been getting a lesser service than that provided by the 'better' one. I did not think that either of those two hospitals were 'good enough' for my husband's care (as mentioned in a previous post). If I needed more specialised care or in-patient care, I would be looking at different hospitals and chosing the one that fits ME best. My 'best' may not be my neighbour's best. It depends on your needs and wishes.
You don't have a health care system. You have a system whereby if you are wealthy enough you can get health care. For those Americans not wealthy enough, they can eat shit and die.
Why did you say that 'Everyone gets health care' when that's blatantly not true?
Yes you don't get turned away, but you will get a ridiculous bill for it though.
does this woman get a bill?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lKUwBCIBzA
that must mean all of american hospitals are super-clean comfort zones with an endless amount of care and supreme nursing techniques... as this article shows!...
Cynthia Kline knew exactly what was happening to her when she suffered a heart attack at her home in Cambridge, Massachusetts. She took the time to call an ambulance, popped some nitroglycerin tablets she had been prescribed in anticipation of just such an emergency, and waited for help to arrive.
On paper, everything should have gone fine. Unlike tens of millions of Americans, she had health insurance coverage. The ambulance team arrived promptly. The hospital where she had been receiving treatment for her cardiac problems, a private teaching facility affiliated with the Harvard Medical School, was just a few minutes away.
The problem was, the casualty department at the hospital, Mount Auburn, was full to overflowing. And it turned her away. The ambulance took her to another nearby hospital but the treatment she needed, an emergency catheterisation, was not available there. A flurry of phone calls to other medical facilities in the Boston area came up empty. Within a few hours, Cynthia Kline was dead.
She died in an American city with one of the highest concentration of top-flight medical specialists in the world. And it happened largely because of America's broken health care system - one where 50 million people are entirely without insurance coverage and tens of millions more struggle to have the treatment they need approved. As a result, medical problems go unattended until they reach crisis point. Patients then rush to hospital casualty departments, where by law they cannot be turned away, overwhelming the system entirely. Everyone - doctors and patients, politicians on both the left and the right - agrees this is an insane way to run a health system.
When Elizabeth Hilsabeck gave birth to premature twins in Austin, Texas, she encountered another kind of insanity. Again, she was insured -- through her husband, who had a good job in banking. But the twins were born when she was barely six months pregnant, and the boy, Parker, developed cerebral palsy. The doctors recommended physical therapy to build up muscle strength and give the boy a fighting chance of learning to walk, but her managed health provider refused to cover it.
The crazy bureaucratic logic was that the policy covered only "rehabilitative" therapy - in other words, teaching a patient a physical skill that has been lost. Since Parker had never walked, the therapy was in essence teaching him a new skill and therefore did not qualify. The Hilsabecks railed, protested, won some small reprieves, but ended up selling their home and moving into a trailer to cover their costs. Elizabeth's husband, Steven, considered taking a new, better-paying job, but chose not to after making careful inquiries about the health insurance coverage. "When is he getting over the cerebral palsy?" a prospective new insurance company representative breezily asked the Hilsabecks. When Elizabeth explained he would never get over it, she was told she was on her own.
sounds fucking idyllic if you ask me.. :thumbup:
Nope, but her family probably did. Then I'm sure they sued the hospital therefore draining more money out of a broken system. Our health care is Awesome! :thumbup:
reminds of the old Pearl Jam joke..
Q. How many members of Pearl Jam does it take to change a lightbulb?
A. Change? Change? we won't change for anyone!!
it really is.. :thumbup:
just like this nugget of genius
Texas has quietly decided to allow hospitals to charge a fee as high as $1800 to victims for the rape kits used to prove an attack.
Despite Texas' crime victim compensation fund being flush with cash, and most parts of the United States seeking to lessen the stress involved in a sexual assault investigation rather than increase it, Texan women have to hand over a credit card before their investigation can commence - or face debt collectors afterwards.
In North Carolina, the vast majority of rape victims were being asked to cover some or all of the cost of their rape kits, until the local Raleigh News & Observer newspaper brought the practice to light. A state victims compensation fund had reportedly run low on cash, meaning it could only cover around $1000 of the $1600 hospitals now charge in that state for the kit. Similar situations have been reported in Arkansas, Illinois, and Georgia.
Rape kits generally include bags for clothing, a comb to collect pubic hair, test tubes for blood collection, swabs for DNA checks and fluid, and a series of tests for sexually transmitted diseases, pregnancy and DNA collection.
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Texas+ ... story.html
And this is the care a little boy in the same situation would get through the NHS - at NO COST to the parents : http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Cerebral-p ... tment.aspx
I rest my case.
Doesn't solve incompetence but it would sure have solved Parker and his parents' problems. Parker (and anyone like him) doesn't stand a chance in the USA unless parents have unlimited reserves of money. With universal health, Parker can have somewhat of a life and so can his parents and siblings.
But as suggested elsewhere may be the emergency treatment facilities would be less busy as with universal healthcare people may go for treatment before it became an emergency.
For a person without private healthcare going to emergency treatment facilities may be the first port of call as they know they can't be turned away thus overloading the system where they may only need the treatment of a primary care physician :?
Just as it is silly to completely dismiss Universal Health Care because of 1 hospital...it is just as silly to dismiss potential issues because it is "only 1 hospital".
its more about fixing the problem BEFORE it gets to a hospital... as for accident and emergency wards, whether a person has universal healthcare or not, if they are in an accident or an emergency won't they still need seen?
if everyone has health care then hospitals see people who are ill... if that means its quite busy now and again then that means a lot of people are ill and want to be seen... are you suggesting that without universal healthcare the hospitals are quiter? is that because they are perhaps to poor or scared to visit the hospital in case they can't afford it? the reason they are quieter is because some poor fucker doesnt want a $3000 bill for a sore ear?
as for the government picking and choosing who is first in line for care??
why does the govt need to know? also personal finances wouldnt even be an issue... a 46 year old man needing an operation on his knee is just as important as a 23 year old lady needing one... one might get seen before the other depending on the seriousness of each persons condition... but they won't have a pick and choose method via the government.. thats insane.
you're clutching at a very very thin straw. it's not silly at all, it's like posting a report on one white Cincinatti man beating the fuck out of a black kid and then starting a thread saying all white males from Cincinatti are racists. you'd then call it silly... which is what I've done to the OP.
if you read the thread you'll see that UK people dont think their National Health Service is 100% effective and without problems. we're not that naive.
I don't think anyone is dismissing potential issues. In the UK, the government is dealing with these on a daily basis. We know the system is not perfect and there's always room for improvement.
I think a poster here was not looking at potential issues but making unfounded/unresearched/false statements regarding the system and proposing a doomesday scenario!
I know a shitload of Canadians and they all tell me they like their healthcare. they say that they may have to (gasp, America) wait an hour to see a doctor or (gasp gasp) pay more for an elective surgery.
they also mention that they do not appreciate how their system is being propagandized to leverage a political fight.
Aerial, you and your friends on the right should send wellpoint a bill for your lobbying services, I mean why should lobbyists, Republicans, and Fox "news" commentators get money and you don't, right?
Obviously you don't get it. This is what we don't want to happen to our Hospitals. Ill take our health care over N.I.C.E. any fucking day of the week pal. Your hospitals are nothing but shitholes. You have people there that cant even get cutting edge medicine for arthritis. What a disgrace.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healt ... tland.html